CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Regent House Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, March 2019
Regent House Nursing Home is rated Good overall; care was safe, kind and well managed, but activities and social stimulation needed improvement.
Inspectors visited without notice on 11 December 2018. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and the manager. They reviewed care records, medicines, recruitment files, incident records and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for safety, effectiveness, caring and leadership. Inspectors found suitable staffing, safe medicines, clean surroundings, staff training and good support with health care. People described staff as kind and caring, and said they felt safe.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for responsiveness. Care plans had become more personal, but plans to improve meaningful activities for people living with dementia were not yet in place. Many people returned to their bedrooms after 3.30pm, with limited chances to go out or join activities in the community.
The overall rating stayed Good, as it had been at the previous inspection in August 2016. The report says there was no evidence of serious risks or concerns.
Safe care and staffing
Inspectors found that risks were assessed, medicines were handled safely and staffing levels met people's needs. Recruitment checks were also completed before staff started work.
“There were enough suitable staff on duty to care for people safely.” from the report
Kind and personal care
Staff knew people's routines and preferences. They supported privacy, dignity, choice and independence in day-to-day care.
“Staff had developed positive relationships with the people they were caring for.” from the report
Personalised care plans
Care plans had improved and included people's life histories, interests, cultural backgrounds, preferences and routines.
“Care plans contained details of people's life history, their cultural background, people who were important to them, their interests, choices, preferences and daily routines.” from the report
Strong management
Inspectors found clear leadership and robust quality checks. The home used incidents and feedback to learn and make changes.
“Quality assurance systems were robust and there was an emphasis on learning from mistakes and reflecting on practice to drive improvements.” from the report
Limited activities and social contact
needs fixingThe home was still working to improve meaningful activity for people living with dementia. Many people returned to their bedrooms after 3.30pm, and there were limited opportunities to go out or join activities in the community.
“Our observations were that the plans for improving the quality of life for people living with dementia had not yet been implemented.” from the report
- 01What meaningful activities are now available for people living with dementia, and how are they matched to each person's interests?
- 02How do you support people who stay in their bedrooms after 3.30pm to avoid social isolation?
- 03How often can residents go out into the local community, and what support is available for this?
- 04How do you check that the personalised details in each care plan are being followed in everyday care?
- 05What progress has been made since the inspection with the Care Home In Reach Team's advice and training?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, with additional detailed work on oral health support for people living in care homes. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 March 2019 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, October 2016
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and effective care, but personalised care plans and meaningful activities needed improvement.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 31 August 2016. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and the person in charge. They also checked care records, medicines, staff records, incident records and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs, safe medicines practice, suitable staff training, good support with food and health care, and kind, respectful relationships.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Responsive. Care plans did not always describe people as individuals, and some people, especially those living with dementia, had little to occupy them. Overall, the home was rated Good.
People felt safe
People said they felt safe, and staff understood how to protect them from harm. Risks such as falls and moving people with a hoist were assessed and reviewed.
“Staff had a clear understanding about how to keep people safe from harm and abuse.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
Inspectors observed medicines being given carefully and found no gaps in the medicine records they checked. There was clear guidance for medicines given when needed.
“People's medicines were stored, disposed of and administered safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people's backgrounds, preferences and routines. Inspectors found that privacy, dignity and confidentiality were respected.
“Staff had developed positive relationships with people and knew them well.” from the report
Good food and health support
People spoke highly of the food, and staff monitored nutrition and hydration risks. Health referrals were made promptly when people's needs changed.
“People were supported to have enough to eat and drink.” from the report
Quality oversight
The home used audits, surveys, incident reviews and an action plan to monitor care and identify improvements. Staff and people could contribute through meetings.
“Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service and to drive improvements.” from the report
Care plans were not personal enough
needs fixingSome care plans described tasks but did not clearly record what mattered to each person, including their likes, dislikes, interests and wishes. This meant staff did not always have enough written guidance to provide personalised care.
“The care plans were not always personalised and did not give a clear sense of the person as an individual.” from the report
Not enough meaningful activity for everyone
needs fixingOrganised activities were enjoyed by some people, but not everyone could join in. Inspectors saw little to occupy some people living with dementia, and going out was uncommon because of staff availability.
“We observed that there was little to occupy people who were living with dementia or who were not able to join in with organised activities.” from the report
Occasional waiting for care
minorThe home was judged to have enough staff overall, but staff said people sometimes waited longer when agency cover could not be found. Some people also said staff could be busy at certain times.
“If we are short of staff on a shift we just pull together, the nurses help us out and we work as a team to get everything done.” from the report
- 01How have you changed care plans so they clearly record each person's history, likes, dislikes, wishes and preferred routines?
- 02What meaningful activities are available for people living with dementia who cannot join the main organised activities?
- 03How often can residents go into the garden or go out, and how do you provide enough staff for this?
- 04How do you manage longer waits for care when agency staff cannot be found?
- 05Has the person in charge since completed the registration process as manager?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five quality areas; the previous inspection in July 2014 had found no concerns. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 October 2016 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Regent House Nursing Home
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- October 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 January 2011.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
46 live-in carers within about an hour of Brighton and Hove
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £1,020 to £1,280 a week. 37 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Lottie showed incredible patience and empathy, adapting her routine to fit in with Mum's moods. Most importantly, Lottie's cheerful manner helped Mum to get some enjoyment out of life.”
“He was infinitely patient with them and got on very well with us to the extent that we now regard him as a personal friend.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.